Summary
**Key Legal Topics:** Mandamus; Election law; Candidate filing deadlines; Statutory interpretation of R.C. 3513.05 and 3513.041; Secretary of state's duties; Effect of federal court order changing primary date; Redistricting. **Holdings:** The Ohio Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus holding that prospective candidates who filed declarations of candidacy 90 days before the August 2, 2022 primary (May 4) and write-in candidates who filed 72 days before (May 22/23) met the statutory deadlines by operation of law when the primary date was moved, and ordered their certification to the ballot. The court denied the writ for other candidates seeking a new filing deadline or postponement, finding no clear legal duty for the secretary of state to create new deadlines. **Key Concepts:** Statutory filing deadlines are tied to the actual primary election date and automatically adjust when the date changes; plain language of R.C. 3513.05 and 3513.041 controls; H.B. 93's restrictions on adjusting deadlines applied only to the May 3 primary, not the August 2 primary; the secretary of state's directive rejecting late filings was in clear disregard of law; the *Purcell* principle does not bar mandamus to enforce statutory deadlines.
Holdings
- The plain language of R.C. 3513.05 and 3513.041 ties the filing deadline to the actual day of the primary election. Therefore, when the primary was moved to August 2, the deadlines moved accordingly. The original relators' filings were timely.
- The Secretary had no clear legal duty to create a new filing period or postpone the primary. The intervenors cannot satisfy the mandamus standard because they have not shown a clear legal duty.
Questions Presented
- Whether the filing deadlines for declarations of candidacy under R.C. 3513.05 and 3513.041 moved by operation of law when the primary election date was changed from May 3 to August 2, 2022, such that the original relators' filings were timely.
- Whether the Secretary of State had a clear legal duty to create a new filing period for candidates who missed the original deadlines or to postpone the August 2 primary.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (25)
- State ex rel. Linnabary v. Husted, 138 Ohio St.3d 535, 2014-Ohio-1417, 8 N.E.3d 940(relied on)
- State ex rel. West v. LaRose, 161 Ohio St.3d 192, 2020-Ohio-4380, 161 N.E.3d 631(relied on)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Republican Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-1873, 928 N.E.2d 1072(relied on)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997)(relied on)
- In re Application Seeking Approval of Ohio Power Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 326, 2018-Ohio-4698, 121 N.E.3d 320(relied on)
- In re N.M.P., 160 Ohio St.3d 472, 2020-Ohio-1458, 159 N.E.3d 241(relied on)
- State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 651 N.E.2d 995 (1995)(distinguished)
- State ex rel. Ferrara v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 166 Ohio St.3d 64, 2021-Ohio-3156, 182 N.E.3d 1142(relied on)
- Wayt v. DHSC, L.L.C., 155 Ohio St.3d 401, 2018-Ohio-4822, 122 N.E.3d 92(relied on)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 127 S.Ct. 5, 166 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 25.